Does anyone have any idea how much concrete/granite a nuke can penetrate?
Or better yet, is there any declassified government studies regarding nuclear weapons and their penetrating effect/destructive capability on various materials, specifically bunkers?
For example, how much 5000 psi concrete can a 20 megaton nuke penetrate? What about 30,000 psi concrete? Solid steel?
I know the shock wave can transmit through materials and crush/destroy objects indirectly. What I mean is, to what extent can a nuke vaporize, crumble, or break heavily fortified bunkers which are specifically designed to withstand direct nuclear hits? I know it depends on the yield of the weapon, but can anyone link to any studies/research on this, or is there none publicly available to civilians? Thanks.
The data isn't too available, but it's generally understood that Cheyenne Mountain will be fucked in the event of a nuclear war.
The most powerful conventional bunker buster, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator can penetrate 200 feet of concrete, and the nuclear versions can probably do much better.
>>30541332
Really depends on the PSI of concrete. All concrete isn't the same.
>>30541332
If the data isn't available then what's "generally understood" is going to be bullshit.
>>30541332
>>30541391
The GBU-57A/B will penetrate 200 ft (61 m) of 5,000 psi (34 MPa) reinforced concrete, 26 ft of 10,000 psi (69 MPa) reinforced concrete or 130 ft (40 m) of moderately hard rock
200 feet of 5000 psi concrete
26 feet of 10,000 psi concrete
Btw there are concretes much harder than 10,000, like 30,000-60,000 psi.
>>30541332
Apparently, the MOP can only penetrate 25 feet or or so of 10,000 psi concrete. That's 8 times less than the claimed "200 ft" penetration of 5000 psi concrete.
So imagine how ineffective it would be against Ultra High Performance Concrete, which can reach 100K+ psi in compression strength.
Granite tops out at around 50k psi. I would guess even the largest manufactured nukes could only penetrate a few hundred few at most of this type of granite.
>>30541332
>The data isn't too available, but it's generally understood that Cheyenne Mountain will be fucked in the event of a nuclear war.
I'd like to see a source on this. I'm pretty sure that nothing short of the Earth splitting in twain to swallow the thing whole could destroy the Cheyenne Mountain complex.
>>30541758
Maybe its slated to get the nuclear version of the Mozambique drill?
>>30541135
If we have to strike a very hard target we will basically drill through it with consecutive nukes.
>>30542085
Yeah, but about how much does each one penetrate? That's the question.
Isn't Cheyenne Mountain only rated for a direct hit from a 3 MT warhead?
>>30541758
>I'm pretty sure that nothing short of the Earth splitting in twain to swallow the thing whole could destroy the Cheyenne Mountain complex.
At the height of the cold war, Cheyenne Mountain had over a gigaton's worth of nukes aimed at it, more than any other target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Yamantau
